Why aren’t you a Calvinist?
I’ve been thinking about doing this for a while, and decided that no time is better than now. As you may have guessed, I believe that the Reformed formulation of the Christian faith is the theological system that makes the most sense of Scripture. Part of the Reformed understanding of Scripture is what is commonly referred to as Calvinism. I’m not too into the whole idea of distilling Calvin’s thought down to “5 points”, but if it must be done, it must be done. I am a 5-pointer, and have no qualms about saying so.
However, I am sure that there are plenty of Christians out there who aren’t. Real Christians, who have examined the doctrines of Calvinism and have found them insufficient Biblically.
I’ve decided to start this post, and allow people to post in the comments their reasons for not believing that Calvinism is true. I am aware that I don’t have many readers, but I do know that if I tag this post correctly people will see it and come to comment
A few rules:
1. Let’s keep it nice. There are plenty of things we agree on in Scripture. One of those things is that Paul says “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” (Col 4:6) I will delete any comments from anybody who doesn’t listen to Scripture on this one. No name-calling, ad hominems, other arguments here please.
2. Christians only, please. This is an in-house debate. Trolls: It will be fairly clear from the get-go that you are just having a laugh. I’ll ban you and do my best to send your IP to whomever I can.
3. I reserve the right to delete any comments that break these rules, or bug me too much. My blog, my discretion.
Aside from that, let the comments begin! Arminians, 4-pointers, Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians and “Biblicists” – I’m calling you all!
Why aren’t you a Calvinist?
[...] Smith at The Ransomed writes: “I’ve decided to start this post, and allow people to post in the comments their [...]
Symphony of Scripture » Blog Archive » Why aren’t you a Calvinist?
March 17, 2009 at 8:01 pm
I suppose I’m a partial Calvinist. I’m not sure about reprobation. Does God really set aside certain people for wrath, with no chance of salvation?
opinionbug
March 17, 2009 at 11:08 pm
I have no set ideology, nor do ascribe to be a “Calvinist” or an “Arminian”. It does not appear to me by the heart of Scripture that this is the most important thing – choosing between these two theologies – in order to be saved.
Trying to understand how God and His spiritual realm works on an intellectual level is almost like trying to attempt idolatry. Who knows such things. I do believe we have the Spirit and it bears witness to us, however, to what degree? Will He not reveal such mysteries as ‘why is sin part of His great plan’ when He destroys this Earth and makes a new heaven and a new Earth? When the great ‘Mystery of God’ is revealed?
The Bible speaks to me like this. I may be in error; please correct me and reprove me if I am.
There are so many verses that speak of both some form of Calvinism and also some form of Arminianism. We all know the verses, so I won’t quote them. I believe, for example, that Scripture clearly shows it is possible for someone to lose their salvation; the verses that speak of this may be speaking hypothetically, (such as Mark 13:22 would suggest), yet this is not entirely clear, and I don’t think it’s really important. What is important is Christ, and our salvation here and now.
There is also many verses to suggest that God desires man to ‘will’ a turning from sin and that this shall save him. That he should ‘choose’ goodness and righteousness and turn from wickedness of his own accord. Maybe God is saying ‘hey, if you COULD do this, that would be really cool’ and illuminates our need for a saviour. For sure, I believe that. However, how far do we take this? It becomes a philosophical issue. Maybe man has free will but is ALWAYS destined to be too ensnared by a sinful nature as to escape sinning at least once, as that free will will not always be strong enough; only God’s will is. Or maybe man’s will is free, but has become enslaved. Or maybe he has no free will at all, and is totally and inexorably in the hands of his God. It depends how far you take such verses; to what extreme you take them.
There is a certain sin in taking the Bible to the utmost literality. I am not saying that we cannot take the Bible literally, but more so that we must take it in context; understand the heart behind it, the intent, and the amount of emotive rather than purely literal content.
Matthew 13:12 states
“Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.”
Take this to the pure, logical extreme, for argument’s sake. What does it express?
Man A has nothing.
If man A has nothing, he will lose the something he does have.
Man A has nothing, therefore nothing can be taken.
paradox.
Understand what Jesus was trying to say, not the LITERALITY of it.
That’s the exact sin that the Pharisees committed, and they ended up being utterly rebuked by Jesus. They never understood the spirit of the Law, and though they could recite enough Scripture to put any modern day theologian to shame, they ‘knew’ (in the sense of a true understanding) nothing of what the Scriptures had to say. They had not allowed the Word to be a living Word. It was a dead word of literal laws and binding formalities; hence, they could never turn to Jesus, for they could not even understand how such a man thought it lawful to heal on the Sabbath.
If we get caught up with these petty arguments of Arminianism and Calvinism, I fear we will go down that same road. I feel a righteous anger against all this feuding between Christians about who has the right doctrine of which frankly is of minor importance compared to the doctrine we should truly be fighting about. Spirit of the law vs. Letter of the law, Christ vs false substitutes, humility vs pride, mercy vs ritual sacrifice, heart vs ordinance, false religion vs tending to orphans and widows, purity and righteousness vs worldliness and wickedness, hatred of the world vs fellowship with it, and unity vs division.
This constant feuding of trying to discover the philosophical nature of God’s stance on free will I believe is in danger of becoming the idolatry that many Calvinists accuse Arminians of having when they ‘claim man has a say in his salvation (supposedly)’.
I fear God’s wrath and judgement on many ‘professed’ Christians who are going down the road of legalism, pride, and thinking they are better because they have a greater ’supposed’ doctrine on an issue that the Bible holds with very little importance compared to other very major issues.
If you are heading down this road, repent, because the Day of Judgement is coming.
Jake
March 17, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Hi Jake, thanks for posting. I think I understand what you’re trying to say, but I disagree that it is primarily a side issue/a philosophical issue. There is wonderful assurance to be found in the Biblical/Calvinistic understanding of salvation as God’s work:
Also, it is an important issue because God has given us His Scriptures, which are truth, and will sanctify us (John 17:17). The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth (John 16:13). You are correct in saying that there are verses which speak of “choosing” and “willing”, and a Calvinist would never deny any of that.
The question that Calvinism answers is this: if indeed we are unable to see or enter the kingdom of God without being born again (John 3:3, 5), and the mind that is set on the flesh is unable to please God in any way (Rom 8:6-8), how can anybody be saved? Is there something innate in them that allows them to respond to God’s grace? Or are they saved from beginning to end by God, with all things to do with salvation coming from Him as a gift?
It is much bigger than questions about “free will”.
exagorazo289
March 18, 2009 at 8:16 am
opinion bug wrote “Does God really set aside certain people for wrath, with no chance of salvation?” This is a great question, but the wrong one…I, too, wrestled with this, so it’s great to ask those questions, but we must start with the holiness of God.
All of mankind should experience God’s wrath. We are all destined for hell unless God intervenes on our behalf. The question is not, “Why does God not save everybody”, but “Why does God save anybody?” We have all sinned and just like any guilty criminal, we deserve to be punished.
Mankind doesn’t deserve a “chance” at salvation. We deserve only God’s wrath and the fact that He shows some mercy and then He shows others justice, is His divine perogative. Everything He does is right. If He sent us all to hell, He would be just, but God, who is rich in mercy, chose to show mercy those whom He willed and no one can ever complain that God ever treated them unjustly. Some get justice, as we all deserve, and some get mercy…but no one is treated unjustly. Praise God for His mercy for man deserves only His wrath with NO chance of salvation…ever.
The angels that sinned from the beginning were sent to hell and are this day reserved for judgment (2 Peter 2:4) Were those angels treated unjustly? No, they got what they deserved for sinning against God. What about man? Man sinned also, so just like the angels, man does not deserve mercy or a chance for salvation. Do the angels deserve a chance for salvation? No, they have gotten what they deserve. The same should be true of man…BUT GOD!! Praise God for His glorious grace. He is Just and Righteous in everything that He does.
Wendi
March 17, 2009 at 11:35 pm
“Does God really set aside certain people for wrath, with no chance of salvation?”, answer yes. I too have had some issues with this in the past, until I looked at how could there be glory in that?
If vessels of wrath are made for that day, the glory comes when standing to our left & right are those vessels of wrath that go to hell. That is when we as Christians fall on our face with real gratitude, fully understanding the only reason we see glory, and they see destruction, is God’s grace and mercy alone, thus the more the reason to praise the lamb!
Two ideas for my Arminian brothers & sisters, if we believe that we accept Christ, than we also must believe that somehow we were smart enough, or wise enough to figure salvation out. On one hand that is a boast in self, and on the other “accepting Christ” is “salvation by works”, because man did something, small as it may be, for the salvation. If we don’t give every bit of credit to God & His work on the cross alone, we are back to salvation= God’s work, plus my accepting Christ, and the Apostle Paul labored against the idea of salvation by works, it’s not works but a gift of His grace alone. lest any man boast. What do we have that we didn’t receive? By His wounds we ARE healed, that’s not an “offer”, it’s a finished work by Christ.
Second, When a Christian truly understands that man is dead in sin, everything has to change. Something outside of man has to accomplish the work. Understanding that & Total Depravity, reading Romans 9 & trying to reconcile it – put into the Calvin camp, and my gratitude & joy for Christ has never been grater!
ezekiel3622
March 18, 2009 at 1:03 am
Thanks for your insights on my question.
Why then does God say He wants all people to repent and be saved if some haven’t the ability to do so?
opinionbug
March 18, 2009 at 2:21 am
Pharisees= unregenerate, unconverted non Christian. Not a Christian acting more gifted/ more wise.
I have lived my life both ways, started Arminian now am Calvinist. I have more Christian joy, gratitude & appreciation of grace, than I ever did as an Arminian. A higher view of God, with a greater understanding of all of His attributes, all with a great ability to love more, and see myself as I truly am, a sinner, worm, uneducated defective excuse of a person, in need of grace, (which may sound a little prideful) But for me the “Christian Walk/ Journey” has been sweeter as a Calvinist…
ezekiel3622
March 18, 2009 at 2:34 am
“Why then does God say He wants all people to repent and be saved if some haven’t the ability to do so?”
well nobody has the ‘ability to do so’ my repentant heart came as a result of my conversion, that too a gift from God. so some don’t repent, and go to hell, God has left them to the desires of their hearts, thus they don’t want God, as far as they are concerned hell’s door could be “locked” from the inside. God’s desires that all the elect come, He prays for His own and brings them to glory
ezekiel3622
March 18, 2009 at 3:06 am
“Why then does God say He wants all people to repent and be saved if some haven’t the ability to do so?”
God has a genuine desire that all people would be saved. This is most clearly seen in 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and 2 Peter 3:9. However, if we take these verses to mean that God desires all men to be saved and this is His absolute only desire pertaining to salvation, then we must ask…why aren’t all saved? Is God not powerful enough? Does man frustrate and thwart His plan?
The simplest answer would be that God must have another will, one that works simultaneously with His will that all would be saved. This will must take precedence over His will that all would be saved, or we would be left with some tough questions about God that we seemingly can’t answer without implying contradictions within God’s nature.
Therefore, God can desire that all men would be saved. However, He can also desire, at the same time, that more than He would like to see all men be saved, He would like to see His grace and love glorified through the saving of some, and His justice and wrath glorified through the damnation of some.
Brandon
March 18, 2009 at 4:20 am
Thanks to all for offering your insights. I’ll save them and read further on the subject.
opinionbug
March 18, 2009 at 7:41 am
Although this is for folk who aren’t, thought I’d just drop in
.
I hold to the scriptural truths outlined in the 5 points of calvinist theology drafted up against arminianism (spl).
Stu Andrews
March 18, 2009 at 8:19 am
Stu! Join the fun.
exagorazo289
March 18, 2009 at 8:20 am
“The question that Calvinism answers is this: if indeed we are unable to see or enter the kingdom of God without being born again (John 3:3, 5), and the mind that is set on the flesh is unable to please God in any way (Rom 8:6-8), how can anybody be saved? Is there something innate in them that allows them to respond to God’s grace? Or are they saved from beginning to end by God, with all things to do with salvation coming from Him as a gift?”
This principle can still work in effect with the idea of man having a free will.
I guess my second point that I failed to highlight, due to the fact that I find it hard to explain, is that we cannot fully comprehend the ways in which God ‘could’ operate. God’s ways in accordance with the given topic could be far beyond our limited understanding and distinct doctrines of Arminianism and Calvinism… As Brandon (and other Calvinists I know) has demonstrated is that, once believing Calvinism, we come up with a rational, human argument to support it, that frankly for me does God no justice.
“I have lived my life both ways, started Arminian now am Calvinist. I have more Christian joy, gratitude & appreciation of grace, than I ever did as an Arminian. A higher view of God, with a greater understanding of all of His attributes, all with a great ability to love more, and see myself as I truly am, a sinner, worm, uneducated defective excuse of a person, in need of grace, (which may sound a little prideful) But for me the “Christian Walk/ Journey” has been sweeter as a Calvinist…”
Good for you, brother. However, does this make Calvinism right? Does it make it necessary for all Christians to be a good Christian? Are all non-Calvinists then, due to your experiential deductions, not conforming to the more important ideals of Christianity?
Frankly, to be honest, pure, raw Calvinism as determined by a modern day rationalised theo/philosophical movement/view of God – and this may simply be because I have not come to a necessary place in my Christian walk yet to be able to appreciate it fully, but it kind of, in some ways, makes me feel it would be hard to relate to God. You love someone as much as you love someone else, both with an enduring passion yet you send one to hell and one to heaven? I do not want to question God’s will and ability and right in doing such a thing – if this is the way God operates then I will humbly accept that, because who am I to know better – but it seems… so far beyond human nature. Of course, that’s pretty much got to be a good thing. But, while there are many differences between God and man, there are also many similarities – it is why we can have the intimate fellowship with Him that we do. While we may have been alienated from Him, at one point, our father Adam was made in God’s image, with the intent to share in the likeness of God.
These are just my thoughts I guess. I do not ascertain to either Calvinism or Arminianism – and I probably feel that were I to, unless I come to a place where God ‘deposits’ the revelation and wisdom of the theology in my spirit, I would feel so alienated by my assumption of God, because to me neither of them work in complete harmony; the very reason why I am man, and He is God.
Jake
March 18, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Admittedly I see things in plain black/white, and am not the best at articulating or arguing these points.
- If God has not predestined our souls then He is not Sovereign.
- If He is not Sovereign then our Responsibility increases beyond obedience to salvation.
- If we are responsible for our salvation then all is lost.
There is the greatest of hope and assurance of love in God’s predestination of our souls.
Stu Andrews
March 18, 2009 at 7:25 pm
“Admittedly I see things in plain black/white, and am not the best at articulating or arguing these points.
- If God has not predestined our souls then He is not Sovereign.
- If He is not Sovereign then our Responsibility increases beyond obedience to salvation.
- If we are responsible for our salvation then all is lost.
There is the greatest of hope and assurance of love in God’s predestination of our souls.”
Admittedly also I am swaying towards a greater understanding and belief in many of the ideals of Calvinism – I feel however compelled to argue that one does not put their complete faith in a doctrine that adheres to the above, but the label ‘Calvinism’ assumes so much more than this.
You can (and I do) believe all of your above points and still not be a ‘Calvinist’.
Without desiring to offend anyone, one of the most startling trends I have noticed is that most Calvinists do see in stark black/white. I love R. C. Sproul but I am yet to see how we can use Romans 1 to justify human reasoning alone to come to the conclusion that the Judeo/Christian God exists while the Islamic, Bahai and Hindu gods do not. I kind of had to have an experience and revelation of Christ before I came to that knowledge; I regard such faith in senses as sheer idolatry.
Jake
March 18, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I’m not looking at Calvinism as a theology that works or one that makes sense or anything like that. I was hardcore against anything that would imply that I didn’t use my free will to choose God, or that God would only elect some to salvation. That was what “made sense” to me and what worked for me. That was what my human reasoning led me to, and I refused to believe anything else.
Then I started reading Bible verses that I ignored for years. I had been told that we shouldn’t worry about Calvinism vs. Arminianism because it doesn’t matter and we can’t know God’s opinion on the matter for sure.
But if that’s true, then why would there be so many verses in Scripture which discuss the subject? Obviously it must have some importance. So I started checking out the biblical case for Calvinism and the biblical case for Arminianism. Based on the Bible, I found the doctrines of grace to be true…overwhelmingly true.
Ultimately, the debate over the sovereignty of God and the free will of man isn’t a debate over “how God could operate,” but a debate over how God actually operates. We can know this through Scripture. There’s no point in using hypothetical arguments here…we must reason from the Scriptures.
My statement that there must be two wills in God can easily be supported from Scripture. Anyone reading 1 Timothy 2:3-4 must conclude that there’s something more going on than God simply desiring all to be saved, or all would be saved. We could go on with tons of Bible verses that back up and further clarify this point if we had more space, but suffice to say that I’m not trying to bring mere human reasoning in here.
I believe in a big God who is totally free to do as He pleases, yet we can also know some of His ways because He has revealed them to us in the Bible. We must not always walk around saying, “Oh…we can’t know what God thinks on the matter because His ways are higher than ours.” Thankfully, He has given us His Word.
Brandon
March 19, 2009 at 5:16 am
Jake: So what do you think the label “Calvanism” assume?
In my (limited, granted) experience, it’s the idea of God sending people to hell that is what most people baulk at. Self-worth and -pride get in the road at this point, because how could God do that?
But I’m keen to hear more of the actual issues. Expand my knowledge
Stu Andrews
March 19, 2009 at 8:34 am
Would be happy to, Stu
I’m sure we’ve all heard the verses; Ezekiel 13, 2 Peter 3:9, also in Ezekiel where it talks of a man turning from his sin basically of his own accord. We can argue and refute as much as we like. I may be wrong, but I feel that a lot of the verses for and against Calvinism are really not addressing a philosophical issue at all, but basically showing that both elements of supposed Calvinism and Arminianism are adopted by God (I am not saying that both camps are interpreting all proposed verses correctly, only that the context of the verses are very alien to the light we put them in… Supporting a grand philosophy). God both shows how He is sovereign and how men make choices. Again, Calvinism incorporates this into a philosophical determinism that determines, to put it simply, men make choices but not free ones. Then we come up with human conundrums of ‘why are we blamed for sin’, etc, which I must admit seems to be addressed and explained in Romans 9.
But the biggest point is this. With our philosophy of determinism we can easily rule out much of the emphasis in the Bible of man’s responsibility to choose by simply orchestrating it into God’s double will and Sovereignty on ALL occasions, and that God’s sovereignty MUST work according to the idea stated in Romans 9. But Romans 9 doesn’t seem to be intended to set up such a philosophy. It is intended to refute those who would seek to swing complete left wing and claim God is unable or has no right to, basically, be any element of a Calvinist. Paul is not saying ‘there is no Arminianism’; he is saying that God is Sovereign.
The biggest flaw however in Calvinism, and I know that many Calvinists will have their own explanation of the verse, but it is the great Hebrews 6:4. I might be being narrow minded, but it seems that most attempts to ‘explain away’ this verse seems to be a very petty attempt to salvage the completeness of the Calvinistic philosophy; may it simply be, however, that we are missing something due to our human limitations, and that the true answer is a blend of the stated philosophies to such a point that is beyond our current comprehension.
“In my (limited, granted) experience, it’s the idea of God sending people to hell that is what most people baulk at. Self-worth and -pride get in the road at this point, because how could God do that?”
I wouldn’t deny it due to a supposed disaste. A friend of mine actually explained it in such a way that should be relieving. Basically, it was something about how when, on the Day of Judgement, our loved ones (family, friends) who aren’t saved are sent to hell the glory of the Lord will depart from them and anything good we saw about them (which is essentially God, or the likeness thereof) will be gone, and we will be happy to see judgement of sin. This correlates with the Biblical fact that our sorrows will be taken from us when we enter the kingdom. However, it does not seem to sync too well with
“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.”
Again, I may be wrong, but that does not sound like a particularly ‘unholy’ request to me.
Instantly it is human nature to:
1) Form a reliable doctrine so as to not create any form of seemed rational contradiction
2) Take the verse to the uber, literal extreme; even though it was initially intended as a parable and was a story never actually had to take place nor will take place; it is told in a way that it would be understood by the audience that it was addressed by, and it seems to me that we could surmise that Jesus intention was to show that
1) yes, punishment is necessary for sin
2) Punishment will come after death, rather than before
3) Even a man with seemingly righteous qualities will be judged and punishment because the law demands it for the sins he did commit
Something else important to note is that, while Abraham displayed an acceptance of the situation as just and right, he did not necessarily show that he was, as some Calvinists have determined ‘a pleasure in the eternal punishment of the ungodly’. Rather, it could be argued that Abraham showed dismay in the fact that even though he may want to try and deliver the man, he could not.
It seems possible that the ‘two wills’ argument does not come to a necessary cohesion that allows for all to have an ‘eternal satisfaction’ in the sense that Calvinism would advocate.
Getting back to my other conclusion quickly, I am not satisfied that the Bible specifically denies the fact that we could ever lose our salvation, but that it is very possible that we can.
Jake
March 19, 2009 at 11:46 am
Jake:
I understand better where you’re coming from now, thanks muchly.
Admittedly, I’ve never wrestled much with the idea that we can lose our salvation.
My belief in God’s Sovereignty is of the literal kind. He is completely and in all ways Sovereign.
If in His purposes, there are some cases of people being in Christ and then out of Christ, I cannot speak to that.
What I know is that, for me, I aim to be obedient because He has saved me from destruction.
–
Just had a moment of clarity.
It must be immensely frightening to think that we can be called to Christ and then fall out of that. And IF God is Sovereign, He has ordered this to happen. And if so, then what of me? What if He, once having saved me, would order a reversal of my salvation.
—
Returning, with the above in mind, I can only say this.
Without an assurance of my salvation in Christ, there is nothing. Empty. End.
But we can have assurance. The Bible, God’s word, is very clear on that.
And that’s what matters. Passages like the Hebrews one which speak of falling away are hard to understand, granted, but they don’t, in my mind, remove personal assurance of salvation.
I would not make Christ’s work of salvation null and void by entertaining thoughts otherwise.
Apologies for the rambling process.
Stu Andrews
March 19, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Amen, brother Stu!
Jake: I would humbly propose that it is not Calvinism that is determined to make theology overly “rational”, but that it is non-Calvinism which is guilty of the accusation.
Let me explain, using the example of what is generally called “compatibilism”:
We find two big themes in Scripture. That of the sovereignty of God, and that of the responsibility of man for his own choices. Neither party (Calvinist or non-Calvinist) would deny that.
The Calvinist is happy to declare that God’s sovereignty is sovereignty in every sense of the word – He controls absolutely everything, and is the cause of all that is and has been and will be. He is also happy to affirm the responsibility of man in every sense of the word – man is held responsible for his free choices.
These two statements, when looked at by everybody, conflict, clearly.
However, it is the non-Calvinist who takes it a step further to say “well, if man is responsible for his free choices, then he must have some kind of free will outside the sovereignty of God”. The Calvinist would not go so far, because it would impinge on the concept of sovereignty. The Calvinist would not go so far either as to impinge on the responsibility of man; if he does this he becomes a hyper-Calvinist.
I believe it is fairly clear that Calvinism, and only Calvinism, renders God and His Word their rights in every sphere they touch.
Also, could you please explain to me how 2 Peter 3:9 is unlimited in its scope? I have always understood the “any” and the “all” in the sentence to be defined by the “you” used previously (the people whom Peter wrote to).
SDG
exagorazo289
March 19, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I believe the Reformed Theology best represents the Scriptures. I do not call myself a Calvinist, as I think it can run afoul of 1 Corinthians 1:10-16; though I do not think many Calvinists have that frame of mind.
I do think each of the 5 points of the tulip are True, but I think they are early evidence of “church marketing” and do not do as good a job as they might. But I do recognize the perceived need of the time to clearly refute Roman teaching.
I may or may not be closer to the Scriptures on these 5 points than the Council of Dort, but I do like the wording better:
Dead in sins – Ephesians 2:1 – 10
Elect of Christ – Ephesians 1:3 – 6, 1 Thessalonians 1:1 – 4
Few are chosen – Matthew 7:13 – 14, Matthew 22:1 – 14, 2 Timothy 3:1 – 9
Sovereignty of God – Romans 9:1 – 24, Philippians 3:17 – 19,
Eternally Secure – 2 Peter 2:1 – 9,
Manfred
March 19, 2009 at 11:21 pm
I would identify myself as a Messianic gentile in a Messianic congregation. I’m not on either side of this debate. In Hebrew thought, this is not a black and white issue. Contradictions in Hebrew, and “Hebrew Christian” literature, are not ideas in which one statement cancels out the other. It is a Greek mindset that says “this is true, and not that”. Honestly, I feel tremendous oppression in my heart because of these hard stances regarding the semantics of God’s grace. I fear that we fall under the same earning for rebuke as the pharisees for how their Oral Law and the names of “Great” rabbis became more important to them than a relationship with God and repentance unto His righteousness. There is no point to a rebuking if those Pharisees were incapable of repenting by His Spirit. He does not give us His words so that we can tear each other down with them, or to hear Himself speak. If you read His words, and trust Him, then you are no longer reprobate. If our focus is on sharing the the Gospel according to Calvin, then to most people it is not “good news”, because you are beating people down over a decision that isn’t ever theirs to make. God is not mocked, and He hates all evil. He does not manifest the lost just so He can be insulted by their depravity. If you are saved today, a clear miracle has happened on your behalf apart from your ability to provide any part of it. However, do not fall under the error of Elitism or hard-heartedness, regardless of which side of this issue you “demand” is the only right one. It has been put on my heart to read the scriptures with a new mind, a much more Hebraic one and much less “medieval”, as was one of my first prayers upon ever seeking Him, “God, let me see what you see”. Until all are one in Christ, live righteously and serve each other as though serving Him directly. Please don’t use His word to destroy each other. Bless you all, it is an amazing grace that we are here and capable to love God and each other because of Him. Shalom.
Yochanon
March 20, 2009 at 2:37 am
Why then does God say He wants all people to repent and be saved if some haven’t the ability to do so?
In 2 Peter 3:9, the apostle writes that God does not wish for any to perish, but rather that all would come to repentance. Yet in reading a passage such as Isaiah 30:8-17, the impression we get is that men do not want to repent, even when given every opportunity to do so. Do we presume that man has somehow improved since Genesis 6:5. There we find the reason why God flooded the world – because every intent and thought of every single person on the globe was evil all the time. Let us not imagine that man was worse then than he is now. The only reason God isn’t flooding our world is because God God promised never again to cut off all flesh in that way. When Jeremiah writes that the heart is desperately wicked (c.f. Jeremiah 17:9), he is describing my heart and your heart. When Paul writes (Romans 3:11) that there is no one who seeks God, Paul means, quite plainly, that there isn’t even a single person on this whole globe (nor will there ever be) who seeks God.
What the bible tells us is that God wants -all- of us to repent, but -none- of us are willing.
How then does a man repent?
Here is where understanding the difference between what God ordains, and what God delights in. God certainly wishes that all men repent, but as we read elsewhere in scripture – none do; so that if a man does repent, he can only repent if God ordains it – that is, if God intervenes by granting a person the grace to repent (c.f. Acts 5:31, 11:18; 2 Timothy 2:25).
If God says He would love to see all men repent in 2 Peter 3:9, that is obviously tempered by what Christ says in John 6:44 that being, that no one -can- come to Christ, unless/except/until, God Himself draws them.
Don’t let yourself confuse the word “can” with the word “may” – for that sort of lazy English isn’t found in the Greek – the word (δυναμαι – dunamai) literally means “is able” — and does not, nor can it be (honestly) bent to mean, something less. The text says that no one is able to come to Christ unless God draws them.
We harmonize these truths by making a distinction between what God delights in and what God ordains to happen. God truly does wish for man to repent – but man does not repent. He doesn’t wish for man to repent, and some do and some don’t – for the scriptures show that no one does.
Lest you imagine it a cruel thing that God doesn’t grant repentance to everyone, recall how in the second book of Samuel, David, after defeating the Moabites, rather than destroying them all (as would have been just), David instead has the Moabites lie on the ground and measures them out with three lines – the first two lines are put to death, but the lives of those under the third line were spared – they became servants of/to the crown. Was David evil because he didn’t spare all his enemies? No, David was merciful because though it was just for him to slay all his enemies, yet he showed mercy to a third of them.
So to, it is just if God allows each of us to cash the cheques of damnation we have spent our lives earning – but God in His grace has measured a line over humanity (metaphorically)- so that those whom God chooses are spared in that He grants them repentance and justifies them through the death of His own Son. Those whom God does not choose, these continue in their rebellion, and are paid the wages of their sin in full upon their death – and God’s mercy to the guilty ones He has shown mercy to, in no way obliges Him to show to show mercy to all.
Daniel
March 20, 2009 at 2:55 am
Acts 17:24-32
“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all {people} life and breath and all things; and He made from one {man} every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined {their} appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ “Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all {people} everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some {began} to sneer, but others said, “We shall hear you again concerning this.”
Yochanon
March 20, 2009 at 3:19 am
One of the most important truths I learnt from my Dad as a just-post-teenager was that of God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Reponsibility.
Those two words have become ingrained in my vocabulary and thought-processes
.
Stu Andrews
March 20, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Seems to me like everybody is saying the same thing. I do not know any Christian that does not believe that God uses His Word by the power of His Spirit delivered by His people. It’s all about Him.
Who has a “full” view on this subject except God. Man is dead in his sins and yet He says that whosoever comes let him come. Why don’t we just let it there were it belongs.
Ike
March 21, 2009 at 2:18 am
Dogma. Dogma is good, but at the end of the day it is only a way of saying something.
Truth. Truth is better and at best we have it in pieces.
In reference to dogma/doctrine/theology – we have so many ways of saying something and emotions run amuck because people believe their way of saying something is better.
There is always a better way of saying something, always and forever; a better poem, a better sounding love letter, better wording in doctrine.
Jesus said He was the Truth. Not words about the truth, nor half truths (which is the extent of every human); we have not learned all truth. The only truth we can have is Him.
Richard Wurmbrand, Romanian Pastor and survivor of 14 plus years of communist prison, spent three years in solitary confinement. He never saw a color, never read a newspaper, nor the Bible; he never breathed fresh air. Yet, in the midst of this period of time where he had nothing, he actually had everything; Him, Christ, Messiah. He did not have books which is words about the words about Him. He did not have the Bible which is words about Him. He had Him.
I have been chasing doctrine for a while and love to talk about the Bible, Calvin or the Puritans and this is good and essential. But if I can make one point: We cannot miss Him. And certainly there is a danger to get so wrapped up in doctrine, theologies etc…that we lose sight of Him.
Can we, as we discuss doctrine et al, consider that we have not known it all as we should, nor can we know it all, but rather say as Romans 3:4, “Let God be true and every man a liar,” even after we have written books, theses’, doctoral dissertations and preached to the masses.
This is the humility that God sees and will come to their support.
Rich
March 21, 2009 at 3:38 am
I agree Rich. The error of the scribes interpretation was that they thought God wanted them to know the word intimately well- even making a form of religion concerning even the choice of lettering. But, the Word came down as flesh and proved quite clearly that it isn’t knowing the words, it is knowing the God of the words, and loving Him because He gave us words to live by because He is a loving Parent. You don’t let your kids wander blindly on their own, and our God established Himself clearly as relational to us, (yes, by grace, with all Sovereignty) as One who wants us to know Him- and not just about Him! Christians tend to say “we’re it, they’re not”. The only difference between us and “hypocrites” living 2,000 years ago is that we claim total liberty in Christ and yet our legalism rivals theirs if not surpasses it. If it is true that our hearts are deceitfully wicked, then we read our wicked hearts into God’s words and nullify them with our limited definitions. He did not ask us to qualify His words with volumes of commentary in attempt to gain intellectual clarity- He said, “follow Me”.
Yochanon
March 21, 2009 at 5:59 am
I am a Calvinist because of God’s grace in the midst of over 25 years of bible study. As a young believer I attended Arminian churches. However, as I previously stated, I am now convinced by scripture that God does all that He pleases (Psalm 155:3). To God be ALL the glory as it is ALL His.
Mark McFadden
March 21, 2009 at 8:37 am
There are many theological issues that prevent me from ever being a Calvinist; however, the social issues alone would keep me from it. Frankly, I have NEVER met a Calvinist that wasn’t rude, arrogant, and unkind. Sorry, that’s just been my experience. So, Calvinism? No thanks, I’m a very happy Catholic.
David
June 1, 2009 at 9:03 am
David,
I’m sorry to hear that.
If you’re ever in Australia, and happen to be walking around Ashfield in Sydney on a Sunday morning at 10:15am .. Drop in to the Presy Church. Say g’day to the Minister after the service and you’ll meet a Calvanist who is gracious, humble and kind.
Stu Andrews
June 1, 2009 at 9:08 am
[quote]Why then does God say He wants all people to repent and be saved if some haven’t the ability to do so?[/quote]
I don’t even think we need to deal with the “two wills of God” issue on this one…a simple check of the context will be fine.
1.) Who is Peter writing to?
The Elect of God; disbursed to the surrounding lands.
2.) Why is Peter writing?
To remind them of the promise of God to save His people in the face of those who scoff and say “he’s not coming back”
3.) How does Peter start the passage in question?
[i]“The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some regard slowness, but is being patient toward [b]you,[/b] because he does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.[/i]
The “any” and “all” are in context; elect believers! There is no mention of a universal salvation here. Context always limits universal terms. The “any” and “all” are “any of the elect” and “all of the elect” which harmonizes with the passage’s context perfectly.
[quote]I have NEVER met a Calvinist that wasn’t rude, arrogant, and unkind. Sorry, that’s just been my experience. So, Calvinism? No thanks, I’m a very happy Catholic.[/quote]
I’ve met some rude Catholics in my time, some rude Arminians, and some rude LDS folks…should that be the reason we use to decide our eternal fate? Whether we happened to meet a nice Calvinist or not?
Respectfully, the truth is the truth, even if people are rude.
Robert
July 30, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Hi Vaughan,
Today, I found your website while googling “Pelagianism”. Thank you for the invitation to explain why I am not a Calvinist. I see nearly all the respondents have explained why they ARE Calvinists, or else why they are not committed to a particular view. So think of this long post as the balance! However, even a brief review of my reasons would take perhaps 2x or more the size of this comment, so I’ll try to restrict my remarks. But I do wish to make one essential point about arguments of special pleading. Elsewhere, you can read about my journey through Calvinism at my website, xCalvinist.com, under the “Preface” tab. (The website is my book, “Calvinism: A Closer Look.” It is a free online read.)
I am familiar with at least most of the reasons why a person is a Calvinist. For I too used to find the Scriptures inescapably supporting Calvinism. These days (again, to put a face on just one of the reasons why I am no longer a Calvinist) I despair over the kind of special pleading arguments that, for example, I see in R.C. Sproul’s comments, when he argues for the inability of man from the word “can” in John 6:44 (No man can come to me, except the Father …”). Sproul says, “What teacher has not corrected the student on the difference between “can” and “may”?” Sproul thus *implies* that the Greek word dunamai (translated “can”) should ONLY be understood according to the kind of distinction we accord “can” in FORMAL English. But in fact dunamai acts as the word “can” in INFORMAL English, as demonstrated in the N.T., where at times it means “wills to” or “may.” Note, for example, Acts 17:19, in which the Athenians ask Paul, “May (dunamai) we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, [is]?” Observe how especially the word “can” makes no sense here. In fact, this verse shows the problem of R.C. Sproul’s implicit argument that dunamai ALWAYS means “can,” but never “may.” Or are we to suppose that Sproul thinks the Athenians were asking Paul if they “can” know, i.e., have the mental capacity to understand, an argument! And so this kind of implied argument by Sproul is misleading. For even if he believes that dunamai has to mean “can” because man’s inability is in view, it is misleading to imply that dunamai NEVER means “may” or “wills to.”
I also believe Calvinist James White does something similar (at the beginning of his youtube presentation on Romans 9), when discussing the verb “foreknew.” Concerning the general concept of “foreknow/ foreknowledge,” White in effect argues (1) that the verb form, (2) in the N.T., (3) when God is the subject, always refers to persons, not actions, and therefore cannot simply mean “to know in advance.” Given these conditions, White argues, the verb ‘foreknew” includes the meaning of RELATIONAL intimacy, and therefore means something like “intimately (relationally) loved” or “intimately (relationally) loved (and so chosen)”. However, again note that White has insisted on this meaning ONLY when these three conditions are met. And so he has rid himself of what I call “lexical control groups.” These are they which historically define the verb “foreknow/ foreknew, such as other appearances in the N.T. when God is NOT the subject, and in 1st century occurrences outside biblical literature. But verbs do not change meaning depending upon the subject. As Thomas Edgar argues, if they did, how could one really know what ANY word meant when God is the subject? One’s theology could simply be read into any word according to what seems reasonable to the theologian. And so to justify the kind of special pleading arguments of a Sproul or a White, we consequently see so much Calvinistic defense along the lines of the “totally other” God, i.e., appealing to analogies or God’s “two wills” or mystery, etc., all designed to overthrow the sufficiency of language, while claiming to do otherwise.
Does this mean White’s arguments show themselves to be inconsistent within his own viewpoint? No, not at all! Not any more than if a Christian Scientist insists that there is no remembrance in the grave, and then goes on to use that verse from an O.T. poetic book as a kind of trump card to reduce every gospel passage about the historical and literal resurrection of Jesus as meaning the disciples’ collective, hallucinatory illusions. Does the Christian Scientist thinks he has made an O.T. verse into private interpretation divorced from the rest of the Bible? Not at all. He thinks he has merely allowed the general context of the N.T. hallucinatory experiences to inform the meaning of the O.T. verse, and vise versa. And so we (you and I) see that consistency is just that, but nothing *necessarily* of the truth.
And so I don’t find White’s hermeneutic any different in principle than that of the Christian Scientist, or even, say, of Joseph Smith. For Smith claimed (prior to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone) that his special glasses understood the divine message in hieroglyphics of the papyri that he bought in the 1830s. Of course I realize James White believes in the resurrection, I’m not stating otherwise. But I do think his description of the nature of God is unbiblical special pleading, and therefore incorrect.
And that is just one reason I am not a Calvinist.
daniel gracely
August 21, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Hi Vaughan,
Today, I found your website while googling “Pelagianism”. Thank you for the invitation to explain why I am not a Calvinist. I see nearly all the respondents have explained why they ARE Calvinists, or else why they are not committed to a particular view. So think of this long post as the balance! However, even a brief review of my reasons would take perhaps 2x or more the size of this comment, so I’ll try to restrict my remarks. But I do wish to make one essential point about arguments of special pleading. Elsewhere, you can read about my journey through Calvinism at my website, xCalvinist.com, under the “Preface” tab. (The website is my book, “Calvinism: A Closer Look.” It is a free online read.)
I am familiar with at least most of the reasons why a person is a Calvinist. For I too used to find the Scriptures inescapably supporting Calvinism. These days (again, to put a face on just one of the reasons why I am no longer a Calvinist) I despair over the kind of special pleading arguments that, for example, I see in R.C. Sproul’s comments, when he argues for the inability of man from the word “can” in John 6:44 (No man can come to me, except the Father …”). Sproul says, “What teacher has not corrected the student on the difference between “can” and “may”?” Sproul thus *implies* that the Greek word dunamai (translated “can”) should ONLY be understood according to the kind of distinction we accord “can” in FORMAL English. But in fact dunamai acts as the word “can” in INFORMAL English, as demonstrated in the N.T., where at times it means “wills to” or “may.” Note, for example, Acts 17:19, in which the Athenians ask Paul, “May (dunamai) we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, [is]?” Observe how especially the word “can” makes no sense here. In fact, this verse shows the problem of R.C. Sproul’s implicit argument that dunamai ALWAYS means “can,” but never “may.” Or are we to suppose that Sproul thinks the Athenians were asking Paul if they “can” know, i.e., have the mental capacity to understand, an argument! And so this kind of implied argument by Sproul is misleading. For even if he believes that dunamai has to mean “can” because man’s inability is in view, it is misleading to imply that dunamai NEVER means “may” or “wills to.”
I also believe Calvinist James White does something similar (at the beginning of his youtube presentation on Romans 9), when discussing the verb “foreknew.” Concerning the general concept of “foreknow/ foreknowledge,” White in effect argues (1) that the verb form, (2) in the N.T., (3) when God is the subject, always refers to persons, not actions, and therefore cannot simply mean “to know in advance.” Given these conditions, White argues, the verb ‘foreknew” includes the meaning of RELATIONAL intimacy, and therefore means something like “intimately (relationally) loved” or “intimately (relationally) loved (and so chosen)”. However, again note that White has insisted on this meaning ONLY when these three conditions are met. And so he has rid himself of what I call “lexical control groups.” These are they which historically define the verb “foreknow/ foreknew, such as other appearances in the N.T. when God is NOT the subject, and in 1st century occurrences outside biblical literature. But verbs do not change meaning depending upon the subject. As Thomas Edgar argues, if they did, how could one really know what ANY word meant when God is the subject? One’s theology could simply be read into any word according to what seems reasonable to the theologian. And so to justify the kind of special pleading arguments of a Sproul or a White, we consequently see so much Calvinistic defense along the lines of the “totally other” God, i.e., appealing to analogies or God’s “two wills” or mystery, etc., all designed to overthrow the sufficiency of language, while claiming to do otherwise.
Does this mean White’s arguments show themselves to be inconsistent within his own viewpoint? No, not at all! Not any more than if a Christian Scientist insists that there is no remembrance in the grave, and then goes on to use that verse from an O.T. poetic book as a kind of trump card to reduce every gospel passage about the historical and literal resurrection of Jesus as meaning the disciples’ collective, hallucinatory illusions. Does the Christian Scientist thinks he has made an O.T. verse into private interpretation divorced from the rest of the Bible? Not at all. He thinks he has merely allowed the general context of the N.T. hallucinatory experiences to inform the meaning of the O.T. verse, and vise versa. And so we (you and I) see that consistency is just that, but nothing *necessarily* of the truth.
And so I don’t find White’s hermeneutic any different in principle than that of the Christian Scientist, or even, say, of Joseph Smith. For Smith claimed (prior to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone) that his special glasses understood the divine message in hieroglyphics of the papyri that he bought in the 1830s. Of course I realize James White believes in the resurrection, I’m not stating otherwise. But I do think his description of the nature of God is unbiblical special pleading, and therefore incorrect.
And that is just one reason I am not a Calvinist.
daniel gracely
August 21, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Daniel,
Just a point you might want to consider before you poo poo the whole dunamis thing.
BDAG never has it as “permission” as in “may I do something.” It’s always about ability.
But since context is king, it’s ONLY used as “may” in that one passage you cited, not in the other 200 times it’s used in the NT so that might be considered pretty shaky evidence against the usage.
Then we look at the context of John 6:44; Jesus is explaining the unbelief of some people who’ve been following him; he’s already said that only those given by the Father will come…and so to make this about “permission” like “may I” just doesn’t fit the context at all; when in fact “ability” fits the whole context of this chapter perfectly.
As far as James White’s comments; I believe that the point is that the word “foreknew is a verb” and people are the direct objects.
There is no place in the NT where this occurs except when speaking of God’s actions.
If you’d like to challenge that statement by saying that God “just took in passive knowledge” you’d have to do a lot better than just to point out that the word foreknew (as a noun no less) is used other places to just “know ahead of time” and therefore that’s what it means in those situations.
You might have lotsa good reasons why you are not a Calvinist; but these two are pretty shaky by my view.
God bless,
bob
Robert
August 21, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Good evening, Bob,
First, I want to thank Vaughan for allowing me to further explain why I am not a Calvinist. Though this post is long, I plan on making but one other with you (here) much briefer. More on that at the close.
Moving on, then, Bob, your appeal to BDAG (re: the word “can”) raises the matter of credentialism, a crucial issue. However, before discussing this I would like to consider the role of presuppositions.
I believe that presuppositions drive exegesis, interpretations, and lexicons. I believe all theologians (myself included) make assertions from presuppositions, and that it informs the above process. Putting the matter baldly, I would say that any premise is already the conclusion, in cases where the premise is de facto the *position* of the person presenting the premise. In debates about Calvinism, that seems to be the case most of the time (I include myself), though usually premises are presented as though they are up for ‘blank slate’ objective verification (I include myself again). Anyway, in my last post I was kind of driving toward this *idea* (my ‘premise’!) of presuppositions determining exegesis, interpretation, and lexicons.
To give you an example, if I presupposed that every word in the Bible meant the concept “broccoli”, I could maintain this view while, remarkably enough, advocating Spirit-led inspiration, inerrancy, consistency of viewpoint, etc. My lexicon (just like my exegesis and interpretation) would be unshakably consistent. Thus the real question in theology is not about consistency, but becomes: “What presuppositions are in line with what the Spirit of God teaches, and which are not?” So my point about BDAG is, I fear that the authoritative sources we Evangelicals often quote sometimes do not follow the Spirit, though their arguments are consistent, and based in exegesis.
Let me give an actual Scriptural example of this problem in Evangelical apologetics. If, say, one looks up the meaning of Heb. chazaq—the most frequent word used in Exodus to describe the Lord’s “hardening” of Pharaoh—one finds this word used about 290 times in the O.T. And, excepting the Exodus passage, chazaq is never rendered as “harden” except once in Joshua in a similar context as that found in Exodus (making for a total of 13 times). Chazaq comes from a root which means “to seize,” hence by implication, “to strengthen,” and is usually rendered as “strong,” “strengthen,” “seize,” etc. in the O.T. It is the word used numerous times when Joshua is told to be *strong*, or when Samson asks the Lord to *strengthen* him this once, or when Absalom’s head was *caught* in the oak, or when the man *lay hold* of his concubine to cut her in pieces, etc. I believe it is also used 31 times in Nehemiah for “repaired” when it speaks of the Jews who strengthened the wall. So here’s the question: Why, then, the unusual rendering of “harden” in Exodus, when God is said to “chazaq” Pharaoh’s heart? Why not instead, “The Lord strengthened Pharaoh’s heart” or even “The Lord seized Pharaoh’s heart”? For these would reflect the normal historical usage. But note that neither of these meanings are the same as the Englished “harden.”
Observe further that there are three different Hebrew words rendered “harden” by the KJV in the Exodus narrative. Yet each has a different etymological root and lexical history. Why, then, since these three words show consistently more than synonymous distinctions in meaning, have all been reduced to ONE concept, i.e., “to harden” in the Exodus passage? (Incidentally, the other two words basically mean “to honor” (as in the commandment “Honor thy mother and thy father”) and “to harden, to indurate,” as used by Paul in Rom. 9). In other words, why wasn’t each of these three words instead rendered according to its lexical history? But of course as I look up Strong’s list of lexical meanings, “harden” is listed among them. Why? Because the KJV made an interpretive exegetical rendering that was *ahistorical.* Presuppositions drove their exegetical interpretation which informed their ‘lexical’ choice. Probably the KJV was mimicking the same mistake in the Septuagint, which likewise reduced all three Hebrew words to Gr. skleruno, “to harden.” How many scholars and persons of formal institutional learning does that kind of mistake represent among the Septuagint, the KJV, and the NAS? Scores? Hundreds? And so I do not grant certain conclusions of such scholars prima facie. I really think more Christians need to approach Bible commentary as the Bereans, who searched diligently the Scriptures themselves, while taking the Socratic attitude of testing every statement to see if it was true.
Probably the most egregious example I have found of scholars ignoring the lexical evidence is the NASB’s rendering of the phrase in Psalm 139:16, “And in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me.” The KJV instead (properly) renders the Hebrew: “and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned.” That is a huge difference. The Hebrew word in question is “yatsur” occurring only one other time (Job 17:7) in which *both* the KJV and NASB translate it as *members*, i.e. physiological parts. Why, then, the license of the NASB’s “days” in Psalm 139:16? For had the Psalmist really meant “days,” why didn’t he just use the Heb. yome, which is used nearly 2,000 times in the O.T. to mean that very thing? Furthermore, the entire context leading up to Psalm 139:16 certainly suggests the physicality of the Psalmist’s body being fashioned (poetically expressed) “deep in the earth,” i.e., in his “mother’s womb” The Psalmist even says he was fearfully and wonderfully made, and elsewhere speaks of his substance being yet unformed, etc. Does that sound like he’s talking more of days or of physicality? Indeed, all such imagery bespeaks of David’s formation as a human, more than (if at all) of the duration of life. And so there simply is no justification for the NASB’s overthrow of the natural context about physical structure, in favor of inserting a theological agenda at lexical expense (i.e., “the days that were ordained for me”), even if it WERE true that God determines the length of our days. The passage here simply doesn’t teach that idea. Even the KJV understood that.
It will probably not surprise you, then, Bob, as I now address the matter of “can” in John 6:44, that I think there are other instances than just Acts 17:26 where the Gr. verb dunamai can mean “wills to” or “may.” For example, are we really meant to take the Englished formal sense of “can” in the KJV translation of John 5:19: “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”? Was Jesus literally saying He had no choice? That the possibility of Scripture *could not* be broken? But surely He thought otherwise in Gethsemane, when He rhetorically asked Peter if He could not call 12 legions of angels to rescue Him and His disciples (even though it *would* mean the breaking of Scripture). And so I understand John 5:19 as Christ stating that He *“wills to”* do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do…” In other words, at the time of John 5:19, Christ’s intention was to do His Father’s will, but for a time while in Gethsemane Christ’s intention was in question. For there Christ agonized over what He would do.
Likewise, when the Bible tells us that it is *impossible* (Gr. adunatos, negation of dynatos, an adjective derived from the verb dunamai) for God to lie, I take this to mean that one of the unchanging (immutable) things about God is that he “wills not to” lie. That is what makes God good. He makes a choice to be good, according to the standards of self-sacrifice and truthfulness which the Persons of the Godhead have always maintained among each other from the beginning (and which sets the pattern for the Neighborly Command for us creaturely persons). Otherwise, we have a theology that says (in a popular analogy) “God is like gold, He can only be tested to prove what He is, not what He is not” ( i.e., “Gold cannot be anything other than gold”). I suppose that kind of theology is o.k. for those who believe God’s moral choice ability is no more than inanimate things like gold (or things very much *unlike* gold), but I do not believe that kind of analogy is biblical. Can such an idea of God as represented by the gold analogy be found consistently throughout the Bible? Yes, of course; if one’s presuppositions demand it. (Sproul’s presuppositions certainly seem to demand it!) But is it biblical? Aye, that’s the question.
As for John 6, then, there IS a possible natural reading of “may” in John 6:44 IF one takes John 6:15 into careful consideration. The essential issue in John 6 is about whether man will live by bread alone. Thus, Jesus perceived that the people whom He miraculously fed would COME and take Him by force, to make Him king (v. 15), because (as He told them later) they wanted physical bread alone, not the spiritual bread (Manna from heaven) which they also needed (see v. 26ff.). This kind of intended *coming* to the Son in verse 15 speaks of *man’s* protocol. But that is not the *Father’s* protocol. The Father’s protocol for man coming toward the Son is through the Son as the (spiritual) Manna from heaven, not mere physical bread. And so, the Father sets the protocol for approach like a king did in ancient times. This is the context of John 6:44, i.e., that man cannot come according to his own protocol, since he desires to come by physical bread alone (which is why the recently fed multitude demanded of Jesus a daily feeding, even as Moses had done in the wilderness).
One other thing about John 6. As for God *“giving”* us to his Son, I do not accept the kind of irresistibility Calvinists attach to that word’s meaning simply because God is the subject and man’s belief is in view. I don’t think I’m saying anything new here. In fact, I think the Catholic theologian, Robert Sungenis, who has interacted with White in the past, pointed out many years ago White’s reading of his theology into key terms in John 6.
As for James White and “foreknew”, I agree that White’s point is about people, not actions, being the object. Thomas Edgar in his article on foreknowledge discusses the personal object argument. He points out that most scholars (I think he means Calvinists as well) concede that Acts 26:5 is an example of the verb “foreknow” occurring with a personal object (Paul), the non-Divine subject being the Pharisees who knew Paul before his conversion. I think that is why James White makes a qualifier about God being the subject, in order (for White) to speak of what he (White) holds to be the relational aspect (and/ or predetermining aspect?) of Divine foreknowing. So, I don’t think White would agree with your statement that there is no place in the N.T. where this personal object occurs except when speaking of God’s actions. There may be Calvinists who *would* agree with you (i.e. some who would not concede that Acts 26:5 is an example of when “foreknew” takes a personal object), but judging from White’s remarks, I do not think White is among them.
But, Bob, more to the point, I don’t think Acts 26:5 ought to be the crucial thing to our thinking, that is, that it should matter whether in the N.T. the only time the personal object is in view were if God were the subject I don’t subscribe at all to the adage “The best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible itself” if it means casting overboard lexical control groups. No, it is ALL the contemporary historical occurrences of “foreknew” that are important, including those in secular Greek. That is what provides us with lexical control groups to help prevent ahistorical lexical arguments. Of occurrences of “foreknew” in secular Greek, Edgar states that scholars do not seriously debate the definition (of “to know in advance”). Perhaps there is some Calvinist somewhere who would contend it, but I personally do not remember any challenging it.
I regret in case you will still find some of these reasons for my not being a Calvinist “pretty shaky.” But as I have indicated, nothing can really *prove* one theologian’s view to another, since every system is able to maintain consistency.
God bless,
p.s. I’m reminded of what a realtor once said to me: “After about three counter offers, the process tends to break down.” I think the same goes for discussions of this kind. Further, in case the arguments I cite above still do not seem reasonable to you, I doubt that any other of my arguments would seem otherwise. If you respond I plan on responding once more (though more briefly), but will allow you the last word here. At any rate, I wish you well in your study of God’s word.
daniel gracely
August 22, 2009 at 11:15 am
Daniel,
thank you for the long, and obviously well thought-out reply.
Though it was long, it was not a “rambling mish mash as things of this nature tend to be.
I’m sorry that i wasn’t as clear as i should have been in my post; when I was speaking of John 6 I was saying that not only does the context make it near impossible that it’s a “may” permission thing, but when you couple that with the lexical definition, and the general usage of the word dunatai, then it’s just about bullet proof; but as you said…our presuppositions sometimes don’t allow us to bend our thinking no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
As far as the foreknew thing, I’m not sure how that damages the idea that God foreknows people and that the sense is that he chose them rather than He “looks down the corridors of time to see what they’d do so He could react by saving them.” It seems that God knowing someone in advance doesn’t change anything…but what is not even an option given the evidence is that whole “corridors of time” thing. That’s another necessary presupposition that’s found no where in the text itself; lexially or contextually.
Anyway…I really do appreciate your well-done, and polite, to the point post.
Discussions like this would go much more smoothly if there were more Christians like you who are willing to state their case and not resort to name calling, and other unsavory tactics.
God bless brother.
bob
Robert
August 22, 2009 at 11:32 am
Bob, Sorry; Two corrections should be made to my paragraph about the three Hebrew words rendered as “harden.”.
I should have said only two, not three (or course) of the Hebrew words were not rendered according to their lexical histories.
Also, in the same paragraph, the phrase “But of course as I look up Strong’s list of lexical meanings,”
should read instead
“But of course as I look up Strong’s list of lexical meanings for e.g., chazaq,
Regards,
DG
daniel gracely
August 22, 2009 at 11:38 am
Daniel,
PS: thanks for making your online book “Calvinism; a closer look” available for free.
I’ll take a look.
bob
Robert
August 22, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Hi Bob,
Thanks much for the kind words. Unfortunately, I still have to work on being polite. One would think at my age (50) that it shouldn’t be a struggle anymore, but that’s just not the case. While I do think there are times when a more aggressive, even sarcastic, comment might be called for, our discussion has not played out along those lines. I (as you) am thankful for that.
Anyway, Bob, just 2 (maybe 3) points if I may. Your comments about foreknowledge remind me of how disappointing my own view of foreknowledge has at times been to me. After all, the concept of God knowing our choices in advance logically suggests He determines them. At least *logically* as we humans would understand it. For those who, like me, hold to this idea of non-determinative foreknowledge (e.g., Pelgagians through Arminians), we cannot explain it logically, any more than Calvinists can explain logically the idea of God decreeing evil without being morally responsible for it. Even R.C. Sproul in his book, “Chosen by God” feels he has never found a satisfactory answer to the problem of evil because of (in his view) the all-decreeing nature of God. Actually, there IS a brand of Calvinism (e.g., that of Gordon Haddon Clark) that claims the conundrum is not really a conundrum at all. Gordon Clark defended his view simply by insisting that because the Bible taught it, therefore it *was* logical. Well known Calvinist professor Cornelius Van Til was in the majority of Calvinist professors at Westminster who disagreed, saying that from a human standpoint we really cannot say the conundrum was logical.
As I see it, the problem with Clark is that he had two different rules for what constituted logic in life, which made it impossible to take the kind of “logic” he was advocating when understanding the nature of God [a mode of understanding which in any other field besides certain theologies and philosophies would be considered irrationalism (i.e., A equals non-A)], and apply it to basic life circumstances, e.g., whether stepping off the curb in front of a speeding bus drew any *logical* conclusion that he would likely be killed. Assuming his own view of *biblical logic,*Clark should not expect to be hurt at all. And so for Clark, I think there was a disconnect of definition about which ‘logic’ was in play, depending on what topic (or circumstance) was at hand in the given moment.
So no matter what position one takes as a Christian, it seems to me he is stuck with a conundrum, unless he denies it altogether. I suppose the only comfort I have in my own position about foreknowledge is what I believe is the historical lexical use of *foreknowledge.* I do think you raise an interesting question, though, about foreknowledge affecting God’s own planning. We know at least that because God knew man would sin He considered the Lamb of God slain from before the foundation of the world. Here God’s knowledge of the future affected what He would do. And yet I think there are other times when God reacts emotionally to events despite his foreknowledge of them, much like an employer who feels tense in the actual moment of firing an employee despite his advanced knowledge that he will do so. Thus God speaks of being “incited” by Satan to ruin Job, despite His knowing that Satan would incite him.
Well, I promised to be much briefer this time, so on to my second point (which should have been included in my last comment). As for John 6, James White makes a key argument about the word “him” occurring successively in John 6:44, and argues that the reasonable conclusion is that only those (him) whom Christ raises up on the last day can be those (him) whom He has drawn. This is a logical conclusion that follows from White’s premise of man’s total inability (“no man can come to the Son, except the Father…”). However, my own view is that if dunamai means “may”, then the whole context of John 6:44 is subject to a contingent aspect. For example (and not to press the following analogy too closely regarding ‘working’), If a boss of a company said, “No one can work with my son unless I hire him; and I will give him a bonus at the end of the year,” the obvious elliptical thought is that one will receive a bonus at the end of the year IF one is hired. I don’t think this is the only verse in the N.T. where an elliptical thought is present. (There may be many in fact; I don’t know.) For example, arguably Christ was not saying that a woman committed adultery upon the exact instant of her divorce, when he said “Whosoever putteth away his wife, except for fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.” The elliptical thought would seem to involve her remarriage. And so I think whether a subjunctive aspect is present in John 6:44 (and of course that is the debate) determines whether or not one ends with White’s conclusion.
Incidentally, re: the word “elect” or “chosen” in the KJV (Strong’s G1588), the word really means “to name out (some) from among others.” It is used when Jesus named aloud 12 disciples among others for more intimate training. It is also used to refer to those who named aloud some seats among others at feasts (they wanted the more prestigious seats). My own view is that such “choosing” is not irresistible just because God is the subject. That is, I don’t see how that idea is necessarily inimical to the word. In fact, we know that Judas Iscariot ultimately rejected his elected (chosen) status which Christ conferred upon him as a disciple. So again, I see God’s “choosing” like the “choosing” a boss does when he “chooses” who works for him. That is, it would include the agreement of the person. Thus (in my view) God names aloud some from among others according to His knowledge in advance of who will perseveringly believe. These are known by God, and the Father offers these to Christ, should Christ agree to be obedient to the Father’s plan and become the Provision of man’s salvation.
But admittedly, my above argument does require a certain presupposition about the separation of personhood (in content) between the Creator and those made in His image, which some theologians would not agree with. Put another way, I do not agree with the idea that God is the “ultimate cause” while man is the “secondary cause” of man’s thoughts and actions. To me that muddles the definition of personhood because it muddles the word “cause”, and so leaves the word “man’s” an empty term. I do think, however, God is always involved in the sense that He upholds all *forms* which He has created, including the forms of man’s knowledge and will. But again, I do NOT think God supplies a man’s own thoughts and intentions (i.e., content). This subject, too, of the separation of form and content is a mystery to me. But unless form and content are maintained distinct, I do not see how Calvinism, or any other expression of professing Evangelicalism, can avoid pantheistic definitions, despite its Evangelical-sounding language. I think, for example, the prosperity gospel theologians have this problem of pantheistic definitions, even though they are far, far away from the intellectual rigors of Calvinism. But that is another rabbit trail, and at any rate, again, my opinions are dependent on certain presuppositions.
Thanks for your patience with more of my comments, Bob. I think I was briefer but not *much* briefer—-my apologies for having made that promise. Should you respond I’ll let your comments to be the last word here. God bless, and if you’re in, or ever in, South Jersey near Philadelphia give me a holler through my email on my website. Lunch is on me.
Best,
Dan
daniel gracely
August 24, 2009 at 12:07 am
Dan,
Oh that all these types of discussions go this way…lol.
You would not believe how some go…it’s insane! I’ve been called names I can’t even type here…
I guess that from my point of view; sticking to the “God just foreknows WHAT people WILL DO just doesn’t fit with the rest of scripture. As Dr. White has pointed out; that makes God the “great reactor” and that’s not the picture painted in the word.
Sovereign is sovereign…either God is the final word on matters in creation or man is.
I would like to comment on one thing that you brought up:
[quote]My own view is that such “choosing” is not irresistible just because God is the subject. That is, I don’t see how that idea is necessarily inimical to the word. In fact, we know that Judas Iscariot ultimately rejected his elected (chosen) status which Christ conferred upon him as a disciple.{/quote]
In fact; in John 10 Jesus says that he’d not lost one of all that the Father gave to him except for “the one destined for destruction; so that scripture may be fulfilled”
While I agree that Judas did what he wanted; it’s clear that God is the “final word” so to speak.
Though men reject God, they don’t do it autonomously, ultimately God is the one in charge. Men just react and act according to their desires, which in the case of the unsaved; precludes the ability to come to God.
As for john 6: Dr. White’s point was the in the flow of the Greek, and the two “hims” being spoken of, there is no grammatical reason to think that they are not the same “him” being spoken of.
You CAN say that, but on what exegetical grounds?
There is a point being made throughout John 6:35 and on and it’s God’s freedom in salvation, man’s inability to come unless God gives them, or teaches them, or opens their eyes…however you’d like to say it.
Anyway…long post again…
God bless and I’ll take you up on your offer of lunch one day!
Robert
August 24, 2009 at 12:20 am
Good stuff, guys. Keep up the tone and interaction!
Col 4:6
exagorazo289
August 24, 2009 at 3:03 pm